4N wrote:CBS is the main network (others are NBC, ABC, FOX). They each have specialist channels that show most of their sports content (CBSSN, NBC Sports, ESPN, FS1). In the old days, you just needed a TV antenna to pick up the four major networks but everything is digital now obviously. The sports networks are all pay TV, but these days there are some affordable options. You can get most of those channels for about $30/month now, compared to $100+ a few years ago, before OTT options came into play.

So I was in Iowa and they had something that had local news on during the morning (like really local) but then had national shows on in the afternoon and evening (or at least shows I had heard of and were not local like Jeopardy and Stephen Colbert). There was one channel that basically only showed Chicago Cubs games! The people I stayed with were really out in the sticks so got everything through a satellite dish. Its very different to the UK's set up that's for sure.

4N wrote:CBS is the main network (others are NBC, ABC, FOX). They each have specialist channels that show most of their sports content (CBSSN, NBC Sports, ESPN, FS1). In the old days, you just needed a TV antenna to pick up the four major networks but everything is digital now obviously. The sports networks are all pay TV, but these days there are some affordable options. You can get most of those channels for about $30/month now, compared to $100+ a few years ago, before OTT options came into play.

CBSSN is definitely a tier below NBCSN, FS1 and of course ESPN. Those are all included on just about every basic cable package. Not so for CBSSN. It's somewhere between ESPNU and FS2 in terms of tiering in my experience. Much better deal than PRO Rugby ever got though, and definitely a very positive step for the league.

As an aside, I think CBS was the last of the big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox) to broadcast rugby. NBC has done the 7s and RWC for awhile now, ABC has had rugby on its ESPN networks many times recently and Fox has shown a few Eagles matches on FS1, in addition to the rugby they've shown over the years on Fox Soccer Plus and its predecessors. It's a good thing for the sport that rugby has the attention of the major broadcasters in some shape or form.

Edit: I feel like maybe CBSSN broadcasted a couple college games in the past? Could be wrong. It used to be a college sports channel, similar to ESPNU.

It's better than nothing as far as I'm concerned, still a decent size audience it can reach, so it's all positive as far as I can see. It gives the league two years to make inroads. Hopefully they get the Ontario Arrows on board and a New York team on board as soon as possible.

4N wrote:CBS is the main network (others are NBC, ABC, FOX). They each have specialist channels that show most of their sports content (CBSSN, NBC Sports, ESPN, FS1). In the old days, you just needed a TV antenna to pick up the four major networks but everything is digital now obviously. The sports networks are all pay TV, but these days there are some affordable options. You can get most of those channels for about $30/month now, compared to $100+ a few years ago, before OTT options came into play.

CBSSN is definitely a tier below NBCSN, FS1 and of course ESPN. Those are all included on just about every basic cable package. Not so for CBSSN. It's somewhere between ESPNU and FS2 in terms of tiering in my experience. Much better deal than PRO Rugby ever got though, and definitely a very positive step for the league.

As an aside, I think CBS was the last of the big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox) to broadcast rugby. NBC has done the 7s and RWC for awhile now, ABC has had rugby on its ESPN networks many times recently and Fox has shown a few Eagles matches on FS1, in addition to the rugby they've shown over the years on Fox Soccer Plus and its predecessors. It's a good thing for the sport that rugby has the attention of the major broadcasters in some shape or form.

Edit: I feel like maybe CBSSN broadcasted a couple college games in the past? Could be wrong. It used to be a college sports channel, similar to ESPNU.

I think CBS (CBSSN) has done only four or five broadcasts of Rugby events including the D1A final last year. So for them this is a pretty big jump.

4N wrote:CBS is the main network (others are NBC, ABC, FOX). They each have specialist channels that show most of their sports content (CBSSN, NBC Sports, ESPN, FS1). In the old days, you just needed a TV antenna to pick up the four major networks but everything is digital now obviously. The sports networks are all pay TV, but these days there are some affordable options. You can get most of those channels for about $30/month now, compared to $100+ a few years ago, before OTT options came into play.

CBSSN is definitely a tier below NBCSN, FS1 and of course ESPN. Those are all included on just about every basic cable package. Not so for CBSSN. It's somewhere between ESPNU and FS2 in terms of tiering in my experience. Much better deal than PRO Rugby ever got though, and definitely a very positive step for the league.

As an aside, I think CBS was the last of the big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox) to broadcast rugby. NBC has done the 7s and RWC for awhile now, ABC has had rugby on its ESPN networks many times recently and Fox has shown a few Eagles matches on FS1, in addition to the rugby they've shown over the years on Fox Soccer Plus and its predecessors. It's a good thing for the sport that rugby has the attention of the major broadcasters in some shape or form.

Edit: I feel like maybe CBSSN broadcasted a couple college games in the past? Could be wrong. It used to be a college sports channel, similar to ESPNU.

I think CBS (CBSSN) has done only four or five broadcasts of Rugby events including the D1A final last year. So for them this is a pretty big jump.

The back row and lock roster always seemed heavy so its not surprising they wouldnt replace Lamborn (maybe they just named him for naming him, knowing he wasnt going to be available). Pretty much all the extra players beyond an assumed 23 were back row/locks

Fry being injured seems like a bigger issue that would require a call up. You only had 4 props and 2 hookers named. Maybe they just wont mention it until thee camp actually commences. I'd guess Angus Maclellan is next man up for better or worse.

The back row and lock roster always seemed heavy so its not surprising they wouldnt replace Lamborn (maybe they just named him for naming him, knowing he wasnt going to be available). Pretty much all the extra players beyond an assumed 23 were back row/locks

Fry being injured seems like a bigger issue that would require a call up. You only had 4 props and 2 hookers named. Maybe they just wont mention it until thee camp actually commences. I'd guess Angus Maclellan is next man up for better or worse.

Although I think Angus earned a spot in the ARC he is a Tighthead. Baumann is apparently available as he is starting for Leicester this week so I have no freakin' clue why Kilifi was named to this side. He's not even on my radar. But still that's three THs and we don't have a natural loose head.

Joe can be an effective scrummager at LH, but he's a hooker. So for me the Front Row looks like: 1. Taufete'e 2. Malcolm 3. Ryan->Waldren->Kilifi

You mean Baumann isn’t starting? Or isn’t available? I assumed they may have compromised and only requested him for Georgia or he may not be available at all because he was specifically hired by Leicester as international window cover.

Kilifi has been out of he loop a bit but he never embarrassed himself. I assume they are more hesitant now bringing young props straight to the national team. Of all positions it really takes time to build to that level it seems.

Even if taufetee can play, doesn’t mean he should. And that would only work if there was a third hooker.

I wouldn’t be so negative. There are quite a few positives hidden in there.

I think people really need to cool it with the outright hostility towards USAR. It’s not productive or helpful. So much of the grief is misunderstanding of accounting or the realities of what things cost. And as you can read, that constant negativity (which is starting to remind me of US politics, people just wanting to see everything as black and white) hurts the uSAR staff morale and ability to bring success. The fact that there is less of an adversarial relationship between Dan Payne and the community should help compared to Nigel.

I am generally supportive of RIM and they sound like they mostly know what they are doing but have been outbid on quite a few things in particular with TRC. That’s a problem for RIM but good for rugby. The most interesting piece was the options they are exploring to monetize TRC. They seem realistic that they lost out on a lot of content. The option they speak of vaguely sounds like partnering TRC to another media entity on an 8 year term that gives up some income upside but might stabilize the product with more content. That would be great.

Comparing RIM to selling off the uSA 7s is again wrong and counter productive. Yes it was a short term income reduction but it does create an asset for USAR. That’s the value...of USAR can create actual assets with value they can generate long term income streams.

Equally interesting is that they are running an RFP process for moving USAR HQ. This type of economic development stuff is something I am quite familiar with. And I am very glad they are trying to capitalize on the jobs and branding their HQ can bring. They are trying to get land and a facility (assets again) through the deal which is the right approach.

The fact that they have tried to bid for Scotland and RSA but lost is a good sign. It shows they are doing something but also they have some fiscal responsibility. That is they aren’t overspending.

The fact that the RWC 7s might break even if also exciting. Considering it was not expected. And as they mention it brings credibility and potential new investment from a world rugby.

So basically I was quite happy to read all that. Not everything is perfect but blind hate and and blind support for the union both don’t help. People should choose productive paths for their positivity and negativity towards the current situation.

A couple of things, there are no leaks. I've only written stuff based on publicly sourced information. This isn't 2010 when Kurt Oeler's email access hadn't been revoked and he had all the dirt for three years. There legit, are no leaks. USAR, the board, and the Congress are not communicating with me (The Royal Me: us), a member of USAR in good standing. There is no attempt to even build a narrative.

I'm good with the Scotland and RSA stuff. But the reason why they've expected to take an L with RWC 7s is poor management. They're signing really bad sponsorships...Blass Wines...an Australian wine...in the middle of California Wine Country?

We don't have a Jersey sponsor right now, btw. RIM, because of TRC is blowing cash. In 2016 TRC had 1.6MM in Expenditures and 150k in Revenue. NBC and FLOSports have both tendered offers to purchase TRC. I've attend 2/3 RIM promoted Tests this year. Now knowing USAR only expected to put 5k in a 6k stadium in a Rugby Hotbed tells me everything. SCRFU is one of the densest Rugby Unions in the country. In fact it's so dense that SCRFU, like the Empire Union, is also a Geographical Union. The the 1980s they put 14k in the Q. Here's the thing, if you were from out of town the weekend of the Canada Men's match you would have no idea it was going on, no billboards, no articles in the paper, nada. This was the same in Atlanta when they played Georgia.

The third test was the Women's CANAM Series. I would call the Saturday match a success in regards to ticket sales as they had projected only 900 people for max, and 1100 people came. But that was because San Diego Girls Rugby jumped through their ass to stage a girls festival that morning. Otherwise no one knew about it based on the conversations I had that day.

Suiram wrote:The fact that they have tried to bid for Scotland and RSA but lost is a good sign. It shows they are doing something but also they have some fiscal responsibility. That is they aren’t overspending.

I think this is a very important point. However, what is critical is whether losing out with bids for Scotland & the RSA is due to financial prudence or due to their ineptness at marketing such events? I genuinely don't know the answer. However, it is USA Rugby's greatest weakness that the International game makes no profit. Until this is corrected, US Rugby will not make up ground on the big 11 rugby nations; all whom generate considerable revenue from Test rugby.

What happened to https://www.usarugby.org ?They have'nt even listed the game on saturday. Under upcoming matches November 18th they play against TBD

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

All in all, having a "Champions League" of regional select sides is a win-win if you can overcome the money issue (which is very difficult to overcome). The politics of club and college rugby are never easy and there will be pushback but for some clubs it might be a fantastic way of getting their players more coverage and might be worth it. It would certainly be worth it from a national team perspective and if the Eagles hope to climb out of Tier II status at some point they are going to need to try something new.

Yeah um...not sure where Curtis thinks some PRP sides will be able to compete with MLR. The PRP is still club Rugby. The regional select side is something I've been in support of for a very long time, currently only a few GU's have select sides. The Best of the Select sides is the USA South Panthers who compete in the RAN Championship in place of Eagles Selects.